DONT HELP PARIS RAPE AFRICA

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Jun 20, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/french_twisted_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm


    I have absolutely no opinion on this one except might this be a role for nato or a european force
     
  2. OMG!!! western corporations ripping off the third world by dealing with and supporting unelected puppet tin-pot dictatorships causing haterd and fundamentalist extreamism in the oppressed populations that manifest in violence against our own peoples! GOOD GRIEF!!.....................................




    .................but only the French led multinationals of cource, i mean you would never find an American concern acting like THAT would you? heaven forbid.
     
  3. I should have made this into a poll

    so do you favor doing nothing
    support the french
    send in a nato force
    send in a European force
    turn the tv to another channel
     
  4. I'm sorry... I thought this was a Girl on Girl Porn thread.... how remiss of me...
     
  5. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    Doesnt surprise me if this was the French attitude, but i dont know enough about Africa and the french to have a real opinion. I do remember one of Chirac's comments in the run up to Telic when he blasted the Eastern Europeans for missing a "good opportunity to be quiet", which i thought at the time was one of the the most arrogant comments i have heard from a politican...
     
  6. Funny, but the Acfricans I meet in Britian seem to say that the French speaking bits are managed a bit better than the ones we left to their own devices.

    Are the Africans really begging the Americans to free them from French tyranny, or is this some US Right wing provocation, trying to find a new part of the world to screw up?
     
  7. Yeah, that's why Algeria is one of the most dangeous countries in the world and why the French have had to frequently intervene in their 'former'colonies (for all the good that it has done). I don't really think any of us former colonial powers can really be proud of much when it comes to Africa.
     
  8. That may be because we were only in Africa for about 100 years. Not long enough to give them the same amount of input as we gave India, Malayisia etc.

    I've re-read the above and it does sound patronising, but I still feel that the longer a country was a colony, the better they have been since independence.
     
  9. The better analogy is that west africa looks slightly better on the US as its intervention has been limited in the past and so rose tinted spectacles haven't been distorted. In places where the US have had a big commercial presence (algeria, nigeria), the americans are tolerated for their dollars and that's about it. Halliburton is not a great ambassador for what the US can offer.
    The anti semiticism within the arab parts of west and north africa means that no matter what the US does, even the modest moslems will see washington's israeli connections as a negative factor.

    Former french colonies haven't done brilliantly in terms of post independance governement management (ours haven't been brill either). One north african described the difference in between the french and brit colonial approach as that of imposition and integration, and the best thing that brit colonialism did was introduce english (though i always thought that if the brits had stayed in algeria in 1815, what a difference playing cricket could have made to that country's mentality). One west african extolled at length the advantages of not being tied to france for tertiary eductaion by a language.

    But for all the faults, the french do not have the naievity of the americans. Look at the pan sahel initiative (BBC report ) as an example.
    What brits would do as a STT on down time from brecon is a US main effort.
    The french however maintain a consistent level of military and police aid to their former colonies through embassies that is long term in duration and not purely offensive in nature. French military surgeons and loggies do long tours in military hospitals and supply depots, you can meet them on the piss every now and then. The french police/gendarmerie have an international co-operation service with all francophone nations the SCTP, that in some places is more efficient than interpol (not hard!).

    The short answer is that while the locals may currently revile the frogs, they do not want to replace them with the yanks and they would like to be treated as equals in the world. International trade protectionism is more at the root of why african nations have had problems.
    The author of the NY post article seems to be a militant example of that dying breed, the peace corps volunteer, all the idealism, none of the realism
     
  10. Algeria dangerous? Yes. it used to be. Now its fine, just a bit ruthless in parts :roll:
     
  11. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Umm....check your history bro....British presence in sub-saharan Africa goes back MUCH further than the "Scramble for Africa " period in late Victorian time....Brits landed in the Cape colony* in 1795 ( it had been a Dutch colony for 140 years prior to this ) ....agree, that there is little to be proud of....let's see - against, roads, railways, education, judiciary , health and welfare you can set slavery, genocide, concentration camps,thuggery,buggery, rape and robbery. Take a look at all the lovely Victorian Portland stone buildings next time you're in London....guess where the money to build it all came from ?

    Not that any damn Yankee has much to tell us about colonisation in light of the planned extermination of their own indigenous people, the Spanish-American War , Hawaii etc

    Back in the day, I worked with the Defence Sales guys responsible for Africa - they pretty much wrote off Francophone countries because it was impossible to sell British kit there. As has been observed their view was 'The French never left '.............much of which has to do with the fact that in a lot of the former colonies the currency was pegged to the Franc.

    That said, Yanks bashing the French is pretty risible: without France King George's former dominion would probably still be flying the Union flag rather than, ahem, << Old Glory >> !

    Le Chevre - << A bas les Colons ! >>

    *cf 'The Union Jack Over Southern and Central Africa 1795 - 1994' by FG Brownell
     
  12. My point I trying to make was not about the Cape Colony but areas north of there.

    Take Zimbabwe/Rhodesia colonised in the 1890's, formal independence in 1980 and set it against India, colonised gradually from 1750's until independence in 1947. 90 years set against 200 odd. Off course it was not plain sailing for Indian independence, but they are more stable now.
     
  13. A fair point, but I was thinking of Sub Saharan Africa. Algeria is a bit different as has a different relationship to France than, say, Senegal.
     
  14. The French colonies I believe were never viewed as colonies by the French and the French Goverment.
    They were and still are to this day to an extent viewed as being France and the people being French.
    That is what I have understood about their culture and politics.
     
  15. That was only Algeria, which was run as part of metropolitan france by the ministry of the interior. Tunisia, Morroco and all the rest were run by the foreign affairs ministry. However in the 60s there was a sliding scale of "independance" granted to those colonies dependant on their value to france. Algeria started its war for independance well before this in 1954 and never compromised at the Evian negotiating table.